On a lighter note:
![Image](http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/ED/5654236FA2B23332BD168CCD5D1F_h316_w628_m5_cpkZOJmeb.jpg)
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Moderator: Steve
Aaaaaand now he has for real;Thanas wrote:Oh, and the reaction by GRRM: Link
I have a long-brewing theory that Martin is the world’s most cynical romantic. I’ve never yet read a Martin novel or story that ended in utter despair for any character who hadn’t thoroughly earned it—and I’ve read him extensively, from his 1977 debut novel, Dying Of The Light, to his many short-story collections and the entire Song Of Ice And Fire series. His work has always embraced bleakness, loneliness, and hardship, with tough-minded people muddling through traumas that perpetually threaten to break them. His protagonists rarely get exactly what they want; often, they can consider themselves lucky if they become wise enough to realize they wanted the wrong thing. His characters often make hard, ugly choices to survive, but those choices make them stronger and fiercer, and more capable of protecting themselves from the hatefulness of the predatory worlds they live in.
Martin’s cynical side can be overpowering: Characters who start his stories with naïve faith in honor, loyalty, or love—especially their own one-sided, demanding love, as opposed to a mutual bond—are commonly punished for their beliefs. But his romantic side holds just as steady, with the most steadfast and worthy characters prevailing. As I put it in that Gateways, “For a man whose writing is so often ruthless and uncompromising, he has a hell of a sentimental streak when it comes to questions of injustice, honor, nobility, personal dignity against long odds, and wrongs that need to be righted at any cost.”
I’ve said this over and over when writing about Martin’s work. What he does better than any author I’ve ever encountered—what defines his writing for me—is his masterful skill at exploiting the tension between the desire for justice and the availability of that justice. But that doesn’t mean there is no justice, just that it’s always hard-won and thoroughly earned. Robb and Catelyn’s grotesque ends complicate the search for justice considerably, and move it far into the future. But it doesn’t make the quest impossible. It just means it’ll be that much sweeter and that much more satisfying when it finally arrives.
I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.fgalkin wrote:Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
I think the point for Robb and Catelyn is that they're essentially abandoning their posts in the North for Southern politics when there's more important things to deal with in the North, and I think by this point in the story the Night's Watch has alerted the Kingdom to at least the wights. That's their justice. What the Frey's get later is another issue altogether.Rogue 9 wrote:I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.fgalkin wrote:Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
The fact that he placed himself outside honor and guest right betrayed his oath of alliance for a piece of ass?Rogue 9 wrote:I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.fgalkin wrote:Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Leave him alone! I too blame the victims of crime for the crime committed against them, don't you?Rogue 9 wrote:I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.fgalkin wrote:Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
yes, and making refrence to mideaval European conflict, and things that have lasted a hundred plus years.Havok wrote:Sympathy for the Devil?
He didn't place himself out of guest right though. Guest right is universally seen as applying to guests regardless of quarrel, especially after they've eaten bread and salt.fgalkin wrote:The fact that he placed himself outside honor and guest right betrayed his oath of alliance for a piece of ass?Rogue 9 wrote:I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.fgalkin wrote:Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
??? Robb breaking his oath to marry one of Frey's daughters doesn't place him outside of guest right at all. There's nothing in the books to indicate that guest right somehow doesn't apply if you break your oath.fgalkin wrote: The fact that he placed himself outside honor and guest right betrayed his oath of alliance for a piece of ass?
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
There's no question he wasn't within his rights, as far as the laws of Westeros are concerned.Scrib wrote:Was he within his rights to kill guests at his table? Depends on how you feel about guestright really.
Like you I had ceded that he wasn't free of the obligations of guest right. I wasn't talking about the Westerosi perspective here which is why I considered the feelings of the viewer.Vympel wrote:There's no question he wasn't within his rights, as far as the laws of Westeros are concerned.Scrib wrote:Was he within his rights to kill guests at his table? Depends on how you feel about guestright really.
Indeed. Quite the opposite, in fact. Consider one of Bran's stories about the Nightfort, the rat king, who invited an enemy and his sons to the nightfort, then on the night murdered the sons and served them in a pie to his enemy (who praised the taste and asked for more)Vympel wrote:??? Robb breaking his oath to marry one of Frey's daughters doesn't place him outside of guest right at all. There's nothing in the books to indicate that guest right somehow doesn't apply if you break your oath.fgalkin wrote: The fact that he placed himself outside honor and guest right betrayed his oath of alliance for a piece of ass?
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Exactly what kind of figure does it take to do that at a wedding?Ralin wrote:I wouldn't say that Robb deserved it, but he did serve the Freys a pretty hefty insult and betrayal, after they'd risked and in many cases lost their lives for him. I don't think this justifies what he did, but it does stop me from seeing Lord Frey as a completely villainous figure, Westerosi concepts of guest right not withstanding.
A really pissed off one.Gaidin wrote:Exactly what kind of figure does it take to do that at a wedding?
Look, we can go back and forth all day on motive and it would no doubt be interesting. But regardless of if the motive is there, what the hell kind of person does that at a wedding. Violating guestright is one thing. Violating guestright is a classic scene in books like these. This sort of turned the knob up to eleven.Ralin wrote:A really pissed off one.Gaidin wrote:Exactly what kind of figure does it take to do that at a wedding?
Maybe it's better to say that I find his motives understandable. And that I don't doubt a lot of other lords would have done the same if it weren't for the super sacred ingrained reverence for guest right.
TheHammer wrote: Anyone who has bothered to follow the series knows that there are still "good guys" and starks. Hell, Jamie Lannister seems to be making a "face-turn" to borrow a pro-wrestling term, and I suspect he'll give people something to root for moving forward.
What they don't seem to grasp is that Westeros is the main character of GoT.
A somewhat practical and angry noble not bound to a very specific rule? These people have all shown that they can be assholes to some degree or the other. I like how a wedding is a sacred event not to be sullied, and not just because of guest right. Please.Gaidin wrote:Look, we can go back and forth all day on motive and it would no doubt be interesting. But regardless of if the motive is there, what the hell kind of person does that at a wedding. Violating guestright is one thing. Violating guestright is a classic scene in books like these. This sort of turned the knob up to eleven.Ralin wrote:A really pissed off one.Gaidin wrote:Exactly what kind of figure does it take to do that at a wedding?
Maybe it's better to say that I find his motives understandable. And that I don't doubt a lot of other lords would have done the same if it weren't for the super sacred ingrained reverence for guest right.
All you've got going for you is that he's not doing it for no reason. Why is him being really pissed off suddenly an excuse when it's not been a good enough one for many other characters through out fictional history.Scrib wrote: A somewhat practical and angry noble not bound to a very specific rule? These people have all shown that they can be assholes to some degree or the other. I like how a wedding is a sacred event not to be sullied, and not just because of guest right. Please.
Fictional history in Westeros? Not sure why I would get into a vague discussion about fiction in general.Gaidin wrote:All you've got going for you is that he's not doing it for no reason. Why is him being really pissed off suddenly an excuse when it's not been a good enough one for many other characters through out fictional history.Scrib wrote: A somewhat practical and angry noble not bound to a very specific rule? These people have all shown that they can be assholes to some degree or the other. I like how a wedding is a sacred event not to be sullied, and not just because of guest right. Please.
There are like four posts above explaining just how they would feel: disgusted. Mostly because he invited them and then killed them. If he had hunted them down and murdered them instead of the customary peace they might have been happier, though how happy any noble in Westeros is with any lord exterminating his enemies completely is an unclear thing. Tywin has gotten away with it with little in the way of negative consequences it seems (he even got a job because of it).BTW of query what would the folks in Westeroes think of Dracula's dealing with the traitor nobles when he took the throne back from his brother?, he invited all the families that had supported his brother and the Turks, and gave them poisoned food. than had the ones that tried to flee impaled.
So you're saying I should be going 'yup, totally normal' when the guy arranges a massacre, whatever the circumstances?Scrib wrote: And speaking of things you have going for you, your appeal to disgust is amusing is what I'm saying. Why should I give a shit that he killed people at a wedding (!!)in particular? Dat holy bedding right?Would duplicity be acceptable elsewhere.